If your monthly cellphone bill seems high, that may be because American cellphone service is among the most costly in the world. A comparison of two similar plans, one in the United States and one in Britain, reveals a marked difference.

Both plans include a new iPhone 5S with 16 gigabytes of memory. Both require a two-year commitment and allow unlimited voice minutes and unlimited texting. The plan offered by the British provider, Three UK, offers unlimited data and requires no upfront payment. With Britain's 20 percent tax included, the plan costs 41 pounds a month, or $67.97 at current exchange rates.

The plan provided by the American carrier, Verizon Wireless, has an upfront cost of $99.99 and then $90 a month, not including taxes. Spreading the upfront cost over 24 months and adding 17 percent tax - typical for the United States - comes to $109.47 a month. But while the British plan includes unlimited data, the American plan does not. It includes two gigabytes a month, with an additional gigabyte free during an introductory period.

This should not surprise anyone. Companies like Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, et al., are state-owned monopolies in all but name. They are not state-owned, but the way the US government - both local and federal - protects them essentially makes them the equivalent of being state-owned. They have no competition, and they know it. There is no incentive for them to lower prices, improve service, or expand coverage to less important areas.

Meanwhile, here in The Netherlands (I can't speak for other countries), our government mandated that the owners of the physical cables provide access to other players, ensuring competition across the board, which has benefited all of us. Don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure something like 95%-99% of Dutch households can get broadband internet via several different media and through several different ISPs. All because our government was smart enough to realise that it would take government intervention to ensure competition.

Of course, it's unfair to compare one of the smallest and most densely populated western countries to the United States, which is crazy large and has large stretches of impoverished areas that probably do not have access to the financial means to create a proper network infrastructure. Still, the US is supposed to be the richest country on earth, and if it really wanted to, it could definitely provide good broadband access to every American citizen at low prices.

I'm on Three UK (switched from O2 about 6 months ago). So far I've had no coverage issues (except at my parent's cottage on the Dorset coast where no network is able to reach! The rest of Dorset I passed through was fine)

I work in Bath and we just got 4G there a few weeks ago.

I pay £12.90/month and I get unlimited data, 500 texts and 200 mins (I think - I never reach my limits anyway)

As far as I can tell so far, the network coverage is pretty good (been to London, Dorset, the Midlands and Wales in the last six months).

I've also been to France and Greece. When in France, you get to use your allowance as though you were in the UK, so no data roaming bills No such luck in Greece as yet though.

You also get roaming in the USA out of your plan with (well with my $16/month) Three as well.
Then there is tethering as well. no charge.
I didn't get charged in the US for using Safari on my Mac via the iPhone personal hotspot.

As for coverage with 3, there are still some silly black spots but I get 4G, again at no charge.

The USA is in the stone age in this area as far as I'm concerned. Charges for this, charges for that ...
Don't forget the USA has the NSA listening to all your calls. I'm sutptised that carriers have not added a charge for that to your bill.

That's annoying. Aren't there some phone towers in immediate line of sight on Muswell Hill though? Or am imagining that? It's been quite some time since I was up there. And they could of course be other networks' kit.

I have family in Chalk Farm and love the heath (especially just north of Gospel Oak, where I myself used to live - happy memories)

what I meant was (I didn't think I needed to go into all the details):

I signed my contract before 4g was available on the 3 network. When 4g was rolled out to london early this year, 3 allowed me to use the 4g connections for no extra charge (over what I was already paying).

This is different to other networks, include O2, where a 4g connection incurred a sur-charge.

Don't you imagine that covering a densely populated area might be a bit cheaper than having to string thousands of miles of towers out into the middle of nowhere? Verizon is who you get if you want rock solid coverage in the US - nobody else even comes close. That costs money - and people value it, so they pay the high rates.

If your local coverage on Sprint or T-Mobile is good and you don't travel much, then you can probably save a lot of money - just don't be surprised if your phone is half useless on the road or on vacation.

50 million people? Scotland is still in the union (at the moment), you know, so we're actually about 68 million.

But the original point still stands. Most people in the US are in densely populated areas, so I dare say US customers are being ripped off, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's not mostly on the handset costs side.

Am I being ripped off when I travel away from Chicago (which is densely populated) and find that my phone gets absolutely stellar 4G coverage along every highway I travel, no matter how remote? Am I getting ripped off when I am on vacation in the middle of nowhere, with no WiFi, and find Verizon has a solid 3G signal I can tether to my laptop?

As I said, if all you are interested in is densely populated areas, you can get much cheaper plans. If you want your phone to work well everywhere, you go with Verizon. It's not as if Verizon doesn't have competition. They charge those rates because the market will pay them.

Thom's point (and I would struggle to disagree with him on this) is that the market is captive because lobbying and various other political corporate influences mean that companies like Verizon don't have true competition so don't have to lower prices to retain customers.

Market economics only applies in a free market. When the market is not free, i.e. when there is a monopolgy, then the incentives amongst the providers (for corporate providers) becomes one of raising cost to the point at which the market will bear it.

Thom's point (and I would struggle to disagree with him on this) is that the market is captive because lobbying and various other political corporate influences mean that companies like Verizon don't have true competition so don't have to lower prices to retain customers.

Market economics only applies in a free market. When the market is not free, i.e. when there is a monopolgy, then the incentives amongst the providers (for corporate providers) becomes one of raising cost to the point at which the market will bear it.

Yes, I am aware of the point Thom is making and he's wrong, there's plenty of competition in the US wireless market. All of the competitors are cheaper than Verizon, and all of them provide inferior service compared to Verizon. Thus Verizon commands a premium - pure market economics.

The comparison against Verizon is somewhat unfair, though. Verizon has coverage for damn near everywhere in the US - including remote mountain canyons accessible only by off-road vehicle (Or snowmobile during the winter). I know this from experience.

I pay about $62/month for T-Mobile for mostly the same service as the British plan mentioned. My coverage in remote/rural areas isn't nearly as good as Verizon, but that's okay. I'm rarely in those areas, and when I am, not having coverage is usually a feature.

Don't you imagine that covering a densely populated area might be a bit cheaper than having to string thousands of miles of towers out into the middle of nowhere? Verizon is who you get if you want rock solid coverage in the US - nobody else even comes close. That costs money - and people value it, so they pay the high rates.

Australia is the roughly same size as the continental US. The population is only 24 million. An iPhone 5s with unlimited calls and 2GB of data costs as little as AUD60/(USD56) month on a 24 month contract (Vodafone). Even Telstra, the most expensive carrier, only charges half as much as Verizon. There is no upfront handset fee.

Yeah, so sparsely populated that much of it is uncovered. Verizon actually covers a significant fraction of the land area of the US with good coverage, even 4G.

For the population density, Australia doesn't do too badly - Telstra is forced by law to provide a certain level of access anywhere in the country (it's a bit more complicated than that actually but long story) - it's pretty close to pulling that off too.

Remember that there are areas of Australia the size of (the larger) US states which are things like military testing grounds and national parks, not to mention essentially uninhabited regions (cattle don't count) - they don't really need coverage.

And Telstra is forced to provide access to other carriers too. It seems it tries desperately to wriggle out of that but there is a complex legal framework around third party access to Telstra copper.

Currently with Sprint; formerly with T-Mobile. Half useless, in my experience is definitely an exaggeration. YMMV. I'd say neither is more than one-fifth useless when on the road. I've also been places where T-Mobile worked but Verizon didn't.

...just don't be surprised if your phone is half useless on the road or on vacation.

I guess if one only goes on vacation in the US. Outside of the US you will have better luck with phones from AT&T and T-Mobile as they are GSM while most Verizon phones are CDMA only which no one else uses.

"...just don't be surprised if your phone is half useless on the road or on vacation.

I guess if one only goes on vacation in the US. Outside of the US you will have better luck with phones from AT&T and T-Mobile as they are GSM while most Verizon phones are CDMA only which no one else uses. "

Verizon,et al will give you an "international" phone that has the ability to use a SIM card solely for international travel; and otherwise uses CDMA with the build-in identifiers. You can get it if you (i) pay more and (ii) request an "international" phone.

Most Verizon customers know nothing of this, so it's not a standard thing for them. I only know of it because a former employer used Verizon even though we had to travel around the world. (I think we was because the accountant liked Verizon or something; nothing else made sense as to why they used Verizon and she did that with many of the vendors, favoring her favorites and friends.)

Wouldn't it be cheaper/simpler to just get a basic unlocked GSM phone for travels and local SIMs?

Most in the US don't know a thing about the difference between GSM and CDMA cells. They just know their phone works on their carrier and as long as that remains true could care less.

The sad fact is that the CDMA, non-SIM card phones that are in use by most carriers in the US only propagates the issue that the carriers are in charge and control the phones, leaving people to think they have to replace the phones when switching, etc; not realizing the rest of the world doesn't put up with that crap.

Most also don't travel abroad.

Now as to my former employer, well it probably would have been cheaper for the company to have GSM based phones instead of CDMA+GSM Verizon phones but as I said - the person in charge of accounting really liked Verizon and wouldn't allow anything else, despite Verizon not being very good internationally.

Thom's wording of "large stretches of impoverished areas that probably do not have access to the financial means to create a proper network infrastructure" would be better phrased as "large stretches of less densely populated land and small cities and towns where it costs much more per potential customer to build a proper network infrastructure". Just because a particular area has smaller cities, towns, and villages does not mean that there is great poverty, or even poverty at all, it just means that area is not densely populated and there aren't as many potential customers there, and therefore it's not financially feasible for 5 or 6 carriers to all build infrastructure, hence the large gaps in some carrier's coverage. That's where the requirement to share infrastructure would be a good thing, and I do support that. The people living in those "middle of nowhere" areas have just as much right, demand, and need for cellphone service as those that are piled on top of one another in the big cities.

Americans are just being ripped off. In Australia we have three carriers serving every town over 1000 people. Telstra provides mobile services to hamlets with a dozen people 1000Km from the nearest big city. We still pay less than the Verizon prices.

I completely agree. This is something that is very difficult to someone that does not live in the US. Besides the few very big cities where it is just too difficult to drive (New York City for example) people tend to move away from the city and the rich tend to move even further. The city is not really a place you want to be or live close to. It is for business and that is about it. Cincinnati, Columbus, Dayton, Cleveland, Detroit, Pittsburgh... and that is just a small section of the US and no, just no one wants to live there in the city. The richest areas in the Ohio are 30 ~ 40 minutes outside the major cities and no those people aren't farmers.

Telstra Australia's largest telco (formerly government owned) has a Universal Service Obligation. It must provide (subsidised) basic services without discrimination to all customers. That means that any two dog town in central Australia has mobile and basic internet access at the same price as its' customers in the major cities.

"This should not surprise anyone. Companies like Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, et al., are state-owned monopolies in all but name. They are not state-owned, but the way the US government - both local and federal - protects them essentially makes them the equivalent of being state-owned. They have no competition, and they know it. There is no incentive for them to lower prices, improve service, or expand coverage to less important areas."

I thought you were talking about Wireless providers - there is massive competition. Where I live there is Sprint, Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile, and perhaps some smaller more local players/resellers. I pay for Verizon because its coverage is worth it.

Everywhere IS like that in the US, except for the really sparsely populated rural areas where Verizon is the only game in town, and a few areas at the margin where it's Verizon and AT&T. For 90% of the population, all four carriers work just fine.

Everywhere IS like that in the US, except for the really sparsely populated rural areas where Verizon is the only game in town, and a few areas at the margin where it's Verizon and AT&T. For 90% of the population, all four carriers work just fine.

In the sparse areas it flips back and forth between only Verizon and only AT&T.

But yes, agreed for 90+% of the population you have quite a few choices. That said, only one of them (T-Mobile) seems to be doing much with respect to being customer friendly in prices, etc.

Do you have *any* idea what an enormous pain in the ass it would be to fully blanket the US in cell coverage? Short of a new law standardizing on a single protocol stack (GSM-based) and frequency set, banning roaming fees, and subsidizing tower construction, it's not going to happen.

Do you have *any* idea what an enormous pain in the ass it would be to fully blanket the US in cell coverage? Short of a new law standardizing on a single protocol stack (GSM-based) and frequency set, banning roaming fees, and subsidizing tower construction, it's not going to happen.

I can't see why standardizing protocol stacks and frequencies is an issue - other industries have had that happen without issue... Even telcos have had that happen with fixed line trunking protocols...

Do you have *any* idea what an enormous pain in the ass it would be to fully blanket the US in cell coverage?

So? That doesn't negate the facts. 30+ million is a huge number. And they keep telling us these problems can only be solved by private enterprise, and we all know it's not going to happen because it is a pain in the arse.

"Monopoly" seems to be the go-to word, but it is not just monopolies that are detrimental.

Ok, replace monopoly with oligopoly in my comment - point still stands. There is an Oligopoly only in a small portion of the market - this fraction cannot possibly be driving prices in the competitive portions of the market.

"Monopoly" seems to be the go-to word, but it is not just monopolies that are detrimental.

Ok, replace monopoly with oligopoly in my comment - point still stands. There is an Oligopoly only in a small portion of the market - this fraction cannot possibly be driving prices in the competitive portions of the market. "

Are you sure you understand what an oligopoly is? The oligopoly covers a greater percentage of the market than an oligopoly. So it's not a "small portion".

You basically have 4 really large companies that supply for most of the market. That is an oligopoly. That is not a small portion.

I'm not defending Verizon nor typical US cellular prices, but on what alternate Earth is 17% a typical sales tax for any US state? Most combined state and local taxes on consumer goods and services averages around 7%, with some states as high as 12% and some as low as 4.5%[1]. But claiming 17% is "typical" (i.e. "average") for the US is simply not true.

This makes me question the validity of the rest of the article, if something like sales tax is so exaggerated. And it's worth noting the exaggeration wasn't even necessary; even inserting actual sales tax figures, the US is still significantly more expensive on average than most other countries. But when the article combines a bill from the most expensive US carrier and a completely made-up tax rate, it certainly paints an even darker picture. I expect better, more accurate reporting out of a major publication like the NYT.

Most of those are "surcharges" and "regulatory fees", not actual taxes, and a lot of those fees are nothing but pure profit for the carriers, hidden under names like "regulatory cost recovery fee". Taxes are required to be paid by law, are used for the benefit of citizens, and are generally restricted to sales and use tax. I could see the 911 (emergency number) fee being considered a tax, but most of the rest is not a true tax.

I remember reading a while back of a customer actually calling their carrier (wired/internet or wireless I don't recall) and demanding they remove any vague fee or surcharge that is not legally required, and the rep admitted that they are nickel-and-diming the customer for profit using those vague fee names.

I agree that much of the fees are going to the carrier and therefore are not a true tax. However those fees must be included in the price in order to make an accurate comparison, and so I think the article was justified to include them. I suppose in the interest of accuracy, the article should have worded it as "taxes and fees," but I don't think the omission of the word "fees" invalidates the entire article.

You're right, probably an overreaction on my part. Still, like I said before they are using the most expensive US carrier instead of an average between the big four. They should also have used an average of the British carriers as well, and explained (like you said) that it's a combination of taxes and fees instead of just calling it taxes.

Well, maybe a little picky... I found it odd that they used the most expensive carrier in the country as well. I probably would have used AT&T, since it has pretty good coverage and is cheaper than Verizon. I know Sprint and T-Mobile are cheaper, but their coverage is terrible most places I have lived (smaller towns and cities).

I live in Canada which is even less densely populated than the USA. We have less money, more open spaces and a very small population. We only have three or four cell phone companies across the entire nation. My cell phone plan does not require any contract, has unlimited texting, hundreds of minutes (I've never burned through them all) and my bill comes to around $40/month after tax. That's probably about 25-30 Euros per month. Data is charged on an "as needed" basis, but I've never gone over $10/month.

Thought I'd share this as I want to point out American bills are not higher because of low population density or large areas of land to cover. Canada is larger and has a smaller population and our phone bills are around half that of our American neighbours.

I live in Canada which is even less densely populated than the USA. We have less money, more open spaces and a very small population.

Finland is, I would assume, similar to Canada in great many things; we only have like 7 million people in the whole country, it's an uneven country littered with lots of swampy areas and lakes, the populace is spread around the country and we still manage to have near 100% cell-phone coverage in the whole country and bills nowhere near what they charge in the U.S. Most phones are not even SIM-locked even if you buy them on a contract.

All the lakes and swamp areas and the likes make it difficult to build a good network, but there's also the fact that towards Lapland Finland gets quite mountainous, too. Not to mention things like having to build everything so that they can withstand extreme temperature-swings, what with winters going as low as -35C to +35C in summers and stuff like that.

I can say that in Mongolia, the least densely populated country on earth (even more so than Canada), phone bills are less than half of what Verizon charges, with unlimited data, in-network calling, and texts... and most people, even in the countryside (really, everywhere except Ulaanbaatar, Darhan, and Erdenet is basically countryside), are covered, depending on the network you choose.

There may be several companies there isn't much in the way of competition in the Netherlands. They all talk to each other about ways to get more money from the customer.
If one increases the price the rest follows.
You could have one GB of data for 10 euro's a month that sort of deal is impossible to get nowadays.
But for mobile it is possible to get a cheap prepaid deal if you don't call that much and use wifi for data.
For television prices are ever increasing. They crippled analog TV they cripple digital SD TV so that you're almost forced to get HD for an additional cost per month.

Rather than Verizon, Comcast, ATT etc being state-owned, they own the government.
The government agencies charged with regulating them are staffed by their former employees, who will return to work for them once their stint in government is over. Congress and Senate members shill for them while in office in exchange for campaign contributions, their staffers join the lobbying firms for these companies- jobs promised to them even while they still work for the government. Call it the revolving door, regulatory capture or anything else. It's an industry-owned government, not government-owned industry.

That's exactly right and it's one of the largest problems we have, if not the largest. The system here is rigged and sadly it seems a lot of people don't understand that rotating elected officials in & out changes absolutely nothing.

This country is about abusive capitalism. What's good for the balance sheet & bank account is simply more important than what's good for the people. If the lower 99% have to be stepped on so the upper 1% can profit or benefit, so be it, no problem. Competitive markets and fair pricing for consumers? Who gives a sh*t about that?

I'll stop myself from going on an endless rant about all the backwards & shameful things that go on here in business and government. I'm sure this post is enough to get me on some bullshit watchlist.

So I got my cell phones in 2004 under Cingular due to the Rollover minutes, and kept the same basic plan since. After they bought and became AT&T Wireless, friends started texting me and I didn't like the cost structure so I disabled texting. Never enabled data either, despite having my NexusOne. When they tried to add data plans at (IMHO) unreasonable rates, I complained and got them to take it off. With the rollover we essentially had unlimited calling on the phones on the plan (4 for $70 + $10/extra phone or $15/extra phone all depended upon last change as to whether it was $10 or $15).

Now, I have kids and various people that watch them want (expect) everyone to have texting. So we switched to T-Mobile and for the same price ($50 base + $30/extra phone; we also dropped to two phones) we now have unlimited talk, text, and data - 1GB 4G data, and unlimited 2G data. For our usage right now, that 1GB is probably more than enough.

And my AT&T network-configured NexusOne is doing just fine for the most part. (I'm trying to hold out for the new Nexus in November.)

[EDIT] So yes, T-Mobile is certainly making the US market a better place; even forcing Sprint, Verizon, and AT&T to change their plans some. It's certainly the reason we switched.

I have Sprint and 5 iPhone 5s' and pay ~$210 per month. taxes included, unlimited text, unlimited data and 1600 shared minutes (never gone over 1000min), unlimited domestic roaming.
For what I need... city, mountains to the ski areas and town-town chasing soccer tournaments it works just fine. My daughter chews up 10000+ text messages per month.

Verison is by far the most expensive carrier in the states. When I was shopping around for what I got from Sprint, Verison was ~$300+ and AT&T was ~$240. All have since come out with updated plans since I was shopping so they may have better plans now, or not.

There is quite a bit of difference between the two. A state-owned monopoly implies the government holds some sort of influence over the companies. With a government sanctioned monopoly, the government works for the company by limiting competition.

The US is a corporatist state not a facist or socialist state. The companies own the government.

People love to cherry-pick stats that fit their pre-conceived notions. There aren't 4 providers in the US, there are many more. The smaller ones buy wholesale from the bigger ones, and often have very competitive pricing.

From a very quick search: "The number of real wireless carriers in the United States may be limited, but your options for cheap mobile phone plans are growing. A bunch of little virtual carriers, known as MVNOs, have come out of the woodwork offering everything from pure prepaid data to unlimited international calling."

T-Mobile GoSmart Mobile:
$25: Unlimited voice and texting
$35: Unlimited voice, texting and up to 500 MB at 3G speeds before throttling down to 2G speeds.
$40: Unlimited voice, texting and up to 3 GB at 3G speeds before throttling.

This is a super-typical "my precious country is so much darn better than that icky United States, let me inflate my ego with biased numbers to make my point" garbage that pollutes the Internet endlessly.

As far as Canadian rates, you are not paying "half" U.S. rates. Google "Canada cell rates" and you will see plenty of complaints about how high priced Canada's rates are. And to the Australian poster, we are not talking about small-town coverage. That's not going to help you one bit when you're 100 miles from any small town. Australia (understandably) is poorly covered with cell service. There are huge swaths of no coverage, lots of coverage that requires an antenna (antenna? - rest of the world got away from those things years ago). Verizon's coverage map is incredible; almost all of the lower 48 states have coverage now. And almost everyone in the U.S. can select from multiple broadband providers, no idea why one of the foreign posters thought otherwise.

Verizon's coverage map is incredible; almost all of the lower 48 states have coverage now. And almost everyone in the U.S. can select from multiple broadband providers, no idea why one of the foreign posters thought otherwise.

Yes, there is some coverage in all of the states, but that says nothing about how much coverage each state has. There are a number of states which still have a large portion without cellular coverage.

Additionally, broadband is usually offered one of 3 ways; by the local phone company as DSL, by the local cable company, and by a satellite provider. You're lucky if you have all 3 to choose from. It's not exactly a secret that we lag far behind in terms of a competitive ISP market, bandwidth speed, and pricing. Internet service here is largely a joke and the price we pay only rubs salt into the open wound. But then why wouldn't that be the case? The way things work here aren't geared towards giving people a break or a good deal. It's all about squeezing every single penny possible out of your wallet, keeping things just barely still within your reach. And where is all the money going that our telco and cable companies are raking in every month? NOT towards investment in anything that would benefit the customer. Your money is being spent to feed the beast with things like the Time Warner/Comcast merger. And the bigger the beast, the bigger the hunger for your hard-earned cash.

And to the Australian poster, we are not talking about small-town coverage. That's not going to help you one bit when you're 100 miles from any small town. Australia (understandably) is poorly covered with cell service.

Have a look at the map. The areas places that don't have coverage don't have people. Nobody visits them except to look for minerals.

I pay $5/month (5 cents a minute) with PTel Mobile, which uses T-Mobile's network. This gives me 200 minutes of talk per month on my smartphone and plenty of texting/data to suit my needs.

There are tons and tons of providers (you see commercials for them all the time) that offer great unlimited talk/text/web and 3G/4G data for anywhere from $30-$55 a month, with no contract. These are all providers that have been around for a while (PTel, Straight Talk, Virgin, Boost, Cricket, etc.) and use the major carriers (T-Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, etc.) and provide SIM cards that can be used with any phone that is compatible with the network type (GSM or CDMA).

It's not just cellphone bills. It's also internet and TV service, too. The U.S. has not prosecuted anti-trust vigorously for a generation and this has resulted in oligopolies for cellphones, landlines, internet connections, TV subscription services, and more.

The economic leadership of the U.S. is being endangered because our governent favors the lobbyists and the oligopolies above the vital competitive interests of our nation. We excelled economically for years due to our superior infrastructure. But if we continue on our current path of favoring corporations over the national interest, it's gonna hurt us, big time.

There is a Verizon single line plan costs $60 per month + tax for unlimited talk, text, and 2gb of data, but the author used the more expensive and more flexible "more everything plan."

So, basically there exists a direct cost comparable in the US on a major network, and even the expensive VZW plan is not an appropriate comparison either as they have a much cheaper plan with the same data/talk/text as quoted in the article.

T-mobile has a 3gb plan (at 4G speeds, and then unlimited thereafter at lower speeds) for $60 as well, but also includes unlimited streaming of music (another comparison the article makes).

But, with all US Cell plans, the call and the callee are still charged, as are the texter and the textee. In the UK, only the person creating the call/text are charged, and if your plan provides "free" SMS and calls, no one pays any more than the standard monthly tariff. That is the part I could never understand about the US - you get almost free local landline calls, yet you gouge cellphones. From what I've seen, the call costs in Canada (I've not looked in depth at the US) are actually comparable to the UK (circa 25p vs circa 40 cents), and you still would seem to get double charged. That makes zero sense to me. My monthly cost never incurs extra charges. My calls are covered by allowance and my texts are completely free and unlimited.

I believe that's because they have more purchasing power. A cell phone plan is almost mandatory these days. You basically have to have one. They just charge whatever you can afford. It has nothing to do with their cost, population density or competition. Competition is actually driving prices up, not down, because higher price mean more profit and that is what they are competing for. Lower profit mean investors go away, stock price goes down, and then you get bought, sliced, crushed and destroyed.

The rapid popularization of the mobile phone in the 1990's was largely due to two key innovations:
[...]
> the introduction of prepaid as a payment option, which made mobile services available on a mass-market scale.

...and lower a diagram showing that prepaid is used by 55% of the world's mobile subscribers (vs 43% for post-paid and 3% "other or combination"). Hm, seems a tad low.

Western Europe is about 70 percent prepaid. China, India, and Africa reach 70, 95, and 99 percent, respectively.
[...]
“Most of the world doesn’t live with contract anyway, and that was the only place we were going to be able to grow,” Jayne Wallace, a Sprint spokesperson, told Ars.

Three in the UK filters their internet... by default they block any "adult" related sites, which tends to block a wide variety of sites that aren't really that adult. You can get the blocks repealed, but for that you have to be a UK citizen.

There are many (possibly valid) explanations in the 70 comments above but I think the main one is still missing – WHO pays the bill.

USA: The user of the cell phone pays a charge every time they use the phone, regardless of whether they are calling someone or receiving a call. When calling, you pay the same amount regardless of whether you’re calling a landline or a cell phone.

Europe (at least the countries I know): The caller pays a surcharge if they call a cell phone (i.e. there are different rates for calling landline or mobile networks). The cell phone owner pays nothing when receiving calls.

The European model (sorry to use the label indiscriminately, I don’t have any experience in Asia/Australia) spreads the cost over more customers, hence the (part of the) bill that goes to the cell phone owner is subsidized by the other customers and, ceteris paribus, should be lower.

USA: The user of the cell phone pays a charge every time they use the phone, regardless of whether they are calling someone or receiving a call. When calling, you pay the same amount regardless of whether you’re calling a landline or a cell phone.

So you're saying the USA cellphone market operates like the Victorian postal service? The receiver of mail pays for the mail.

USA: The user of the cell phone pays a charge every time they use the phone, regardless of whether they are calling someone or receiving a call. When calling, you pay the same amount regardless of whether you’re calling a landline or a cell phone.

I'm not sure where you heard that but, not quite. First, we don't pay a charge to use cell phones. There's no fee for placing or receiving a cell call. If a call is connected, a price for that call is tallied based on minutes connected and minutes available. Most people I know pay a flat monthly rate for unlimited calling. For example, $50/month whether you make 10 calls or 10,000 calls of any duration. For people using pre-paid/limited minutes service, most providers don't deduct minutes if you're calling another phone with the same provider (for example, AT&T wireless calling AT&T wireless).

"Meanwhile, here in The Netherlands (I can't speak for other countries), our government mandated that the owners of the physical cables provide access to other players, ensuring competition across the board, which has benefited all of us."

That is swell for the "competitors" who get to resell services without having to bear any risk associated with building out their own infrastructure. We have that nonsense here in the states too with landline telephone service, and time has shown that incumbents have little incentive to invest in infrastructure improvements when all of their free-riding competitiors can just undercut them on retail pricing at no risk.